“He seems to be studying Toyota very intently.”

That’s a quote from my colleague, Edward A. Sanchez, about Ford CEO Mulally. Like most of the enthusiast community, I had been trying to figure out why Ford Motor Co. brought back the Taurus moniker after barely discontinuing it.

“He seems to be studying Toyota very intently.”

That’s a quote from my colleague, Edward A. Sanchez, about Ford CEO Mulally. Like most of the enthusiast community, I had been trying to figure out why Ford Motor Co. brought back the Taurus moniker after barely discontinuing it.

First, you have to understand why what enthusiasts feel about the Taurus, which can be summed up in two words: hate it. (Exception: the SHO derivative, Ford’s attempt at marketing the Taurus to the enthusiast community.) The mid-sized sedan is the worse of a trio of “boring” appliances which include the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. None are, from an enthusiast’s viewpoint, fun* to drive. But the Taurus was especially ridiculed because Ford 1) never made improvements, focusing instead of those hated SUVs; 2) formed the bulk of fleet and rental cars which made it common; and 3) priced nearly equal to the vastly superior (but boring) Camry and Accord. Enthusiasts nearly threw parties when receiving news that the Taurus badge–and all that it represented to them–was retired.

So you can imagine the surprise and shock when the car community received news that Ford was resurrecting the name. Most agree, including myself, that Ford did so because of recognition. Few of the Taurus’ target segment, the regular consumer, have heard of the Taurus replacement, the Five Hundred. Same with the Mercury Montego, which is that brand’s Taurus sibling. Worse, while enthusiasts have at least negative feelings towards the Taurus, the consumers have no connection to the new sedans at all, a marketing nightmare. Rightly or wrongly (and you can figure where an enthusiast will fall), the Taurus, which debuted in 1985, is remembered by most Americans.

And that’s what Mulally is counting on. I suspect, inspired from my colleague’s quote, that the current head of Ford wants to duplicate Toyota’s strategy with its Camry.

The Camry, then called the Celica Camry, first arrived in the U.S. in 1980. It would later change to its permanent name in model year 1982. It has never been discontinued in the U.S. or suffered a name change. Thus, despite a rocky start in the U.S. (more to due with American prejudice at the time than the vehicles themselves), the Camry is now a benchmark, with the Honda Accord, in the mid-sized segment.

Here, in my opinion, is what I think Mulally’s planning. First, bring back the Taurus name to generate more sales. Dealers have been complaining to Ford that consumers are perplexed by the Five Hundred/MOntego. The Taurus/Sable, at least, will give potential buyers some form of reference and, hopefully, increase sales. (Unlike enthusiasts, many consumers had no problems with the Taurus/Sable or with driving a so-called “appliance” as sales of Camrys, Civics, and Accords will attest.) Mulally then hopes, with cash–finally!–in the coffers, that Ford can improve each generation the Taurus which should bring even more buyers.

A good plan and one that has been suggested in the past by analysts and the car community. Unfortunately, it’s doomed.

Mulally was not brought into Ford for the long-term. Following American corporate standard operating procedure, he’s there for the short term (3-5 years), which is not even close to what it’ll take to bring the company out of its long-term problem.

First, he’s 62. With a $2 million salary and millions in compensation, I’ll be surprised if he’s still working in 3 years in any capacity, nevermind at Ford. (And yes, I know GM Vice Chairman Lutz is 70. He’s also going to either retire in 2008 or shortly afterwards.)

And speaking of Ford, we know, from the company’s history, the short terms non-family CEOs stay in the company. (The Ford family has controlling shares of Ford stock.) Prior Ford CEO Bill Ford, Jr., is still on the board as Executive Chairman and will either resume the CEO position once Mulally leaves or appoint a new one.

Second, name changes are short-sighted. As any marketing major will tell you, brand development and recognition is a costly process in both money and time. It takes years for products to sink into consumers’ psyches. While I applaud Mulally reinstituting the Taurus, I also know he won’t be around to turnaround the worse of the appliances.

Mulally’s purpose in Ford is obvious. He’s there to complete the company’s “Way Forward” strategy started under Bill Ford, Jr.; show company muscle in the upcoming UAW labor contract negotiations this year; and keep the financial community (aka Wall Street) pleased enough by showing that Ford is doing something to stave off its abysmal finances. The revival of the Taurus name serves those purposes in the short-term just like his appointment as CEO and President. I won’t be surprised to hear that, after his retirement in 2010 or shortly afterwards, that there will be little development–again–on this once great car. At least the old bull (and its Mercury deer counterpart) will be given the chance to give one last breath to the struggling automaker.

*The BMW 3-Series or, barely, the Mazda6, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, or Subaru WRX, are the benchmarks for “fun to drive” cars.